New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Crysis blows

post #1 of 47
4/19/08 at 8:35pm
Thread Starter 
I treated myself to Crysis on Friday night. What a mistake. OK, so I havent got a 3 way SLI rig, water cooled MOFO of a PC. I just have a 7950GTX, dual core 2.0 GHz 1710. But boy, does Gears of War look amazing on 1400 resolution, so this is going to be OK.

I cant even get the thing running smoothly on low, never mind medium. I have even tweaked the system.cfg file to disable shadows etc. and it still runs like a Pig.

This is lazy programming in my opinion. To write a game that cant run on medium looking half decent, and with decent FPS is just pure lazy. They write this for the minority, not the majority. GOW on the other hand is excellent, they obviously used every trick in the book to get this to look amazing on reasonable spec PCs.

I could of course be wrong, and my computer is screwed...and you are all loving Crysis...in wihch case tell me your secrets!

By the way.....dont make a game that means every scene has 10 million leaves in it.....dont assume we are all millionaires
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 47
4/19/08 at 10:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by indy2005 View Post
I treated myself to Crysis on Friday night. What a mistake. OK, so I havent got a 3 way SLI rig, water cooled MOFO of a PC. I just have a 7950GTX, dual core 2.0 GHz 1710. But boy, does Gears of War look amazing on 1400 resolution, so this is going to be OK.

I cant even get the thing running smoothly on low, never mind medium. I have even tweaked the system.cfg file to disable shadows etc. and it still runs like a Pig.

This is lazy programming in my opinion. To write a game that cant run on medium looking half decent, and with decent FPS is just pure lazy. They write this for the minority, not the majority. GOW on the other hand is excellent, they obviously used every trick in the book to get this to look amazing on reasonable spec PCs.

I could of course be wrong, and my computer is screwed...and you are all loving Crysis...in wihch case tell me your secrets!

By the way.....dont make a game that means every scene has 10 million leaves in it.....dont assume we are all millionaires
My rig can't run crysis on medium on a 1280x800 without going to the 0FPS marks
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 47
4/19/08 at 11:24pm
I really don't get why I hear a good amount of people with M1710 or M1730 complaining about their Crysis performance. I can play all medium well on playable with my 9300+7800GTX at 1280x800, which is perfectly fine for the most demanding game ever. Compare your stuff with other people without problems and/or fix your technical problems before complaining how much the game sucks.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 47
4/20/08 at 12:17am
Yeah Crysis is WAY more graphically intensive than GoW. No comparison there. Crysis has thousands of shaders whereas most other games have under 100. It also renders a good deal more polygons due to the massive draw distances and dense foliage. That said, I also ran it decently with mediumish settings and 1280x800 on an XPS Gen 2 7800GTX. I have since moved on to a desktop rig with a G92 8800GTS 512MB that can handle all high at 1920x1080, but anything higher even that chokes. So yeah its a very demanding game. But it should be at least playable at medium settings on your setup. I would look at LaptopVideo2go.com for updated drivers.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 47
4/20/08 at 1:58am
Ran it on mostly medium settings on my XPS 2. No difference between textures on high vs medium vs low. I set the resolution to 1280x800, game effects to high, and modified my config files to enable sun beams. The sun beam effect makes it look great but costs an insignificant 2 fps; I'm not sure why they don't turn it on for medium settings.

That said, I'm still getting average fps in the twenties all the time, with pauses here and there. Unfortunately, lowering settings barely makes a difference, so you might as well crank it up like I did.

Overall, the game looked great given how old my hardware is, but it was definitely straddling the border between playable and unplayable. Especially since it makes my 7800 GTX Go overheat, dropping me to under 10 fps.

Here's some screenshots with my settings:
http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/sc...enShot0007.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/sc...enShot0008.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/sc...enShot0009.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/sc...enShot0010.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/sc...enShot0011.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/sc...enShot0012.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/sc...enShot0013.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/sc...enShot0014.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/sc...enShot0015.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/sc...enShot0016.jpg

Oh, and Blahman, I'm thinking about building a desktop with maybe an 8800 GT or GTS, maybe in SLI. My goal is to run Crysis on Very High settings (using the directx 9 hacked configs) at a resolution greater than or equal to 1280x800. Can your machine do that?
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 47
4/20/08 at 5:59am
bump, lazy programing! I'll just wait two or three years to be able to play Crysis. Until then, my 1705 with 2500m will do.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 47
4/20/08 at 6:50am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshnor713 View Post
I really don't get why I hear a good amount of people with M1710 or M1730 complaining about their Crysis performance. I can play all medium well on playable with my 9300+7800GTX at 1280x800, which is perfectly fine for the most demanding game ever. Compare your stuff with other people without problems and/or fix your technical problems before complaining how much the game sucks.

Hi,

We are all entitled to our opinion. Mine is, it sucks (for me)...back to COD4.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 47
4/20/08 at 6:52am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by |-007-| View Post
Ran it on mostly medium settings on my XPS 2. No difference between textures on high vs medium vs low. I set the resolution to 1280x800, game effects to high, and modified my config files to enable sun beams. The sun beam effect makes it look great but costs an insignificant 2 fps; I'm not sure why they don't turn it on for medium settings.

That said, I'm still getting average fps in the twenties all the time, with pauses here and there. Unfortunately, lowering settings barely makes a difference, so you might as well crank it up like I did.

Overall, the game looked great given how old my hardware is, but it was definitely straddling the border between playable and unplayable. Especially since it makes my 7800 GTX Go overheat, dropping me to under 10 fps.

Here's some screenshots with my settings:
http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/screenshots/ScreenShot0007.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/screenshots/ScreenShot0008.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/screenshots/ScreenShot0009.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/screenshots/ScreenShot0010.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/screenshots/ScreenShot0011.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/screenshots/ScreenShot0012.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/screenshots/ScreenShot0013.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/screenshots/ScreenShot0014.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/screenshots/ScreenShot0015.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/screenshots/ScreenShot0016.jpg

Oh, and Blahman, I'm thinking about building a desktop with maybe an 8800 GT or GTS, maybe in SLI. My goal is to run Crysis on Very High settings (using the directx 9 hacked configs) at a resolution greater than or equal to 1280x800. Can your machine do that?
Looks great. Did you drop shadows at all? That gave me some semblance of performance, until another AI character came along.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 47
4/20/08 at 2:29pm
I set with 1920X1200 medium setting 0XAA, and it plays pretty good.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 47
4/20/08 at 4:09pm
This game is meant to be played on an 8 series card, not 7
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 47
4/20/08 at 8:15pm
Thread Starter 
Hi,

After 3 days of tweaking, I am getting 22-30 FPS. I am big enough to admit my mistake and I am quite enjoying it now. Running at quite low resolution, and using no nvidia scaling - so the picture is small but crisp.

These are settings so far:

con_restricted=0
r_MultiGPU=0
r_MotionBlur=0
e_decals_life_time_scale=1
e_decals_allow_game_decals=0
e_vegetation_static_instancing=1
e_hw_occlusion_culling_objects=1
e_dynamic_light=0
r_ColorGrading=0
r_useEdgeAA=0
r_sunshafts=1
e_shadows=0
r_width=1280
r_height=800
e_vegetation_wind=0
e_proc_vegetation=0
e_sky_type=0
r_texturesstreaming=0
e_precache_level=1
r_vsync=0
r_displayinfo=0
sys_enable_budgetmonitoring=0
r_ssao=0
e_vegetation_min_size=3
s_formattype=1
e_wind=0


Boy, theres a lot to be said for an xbox...
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 47
4/20/08 at 8:24pm
crysis=ftw!! It just pisses me off that every other game i have right now i can max out no prob but this game is on like medium...
ive beaten this game 4 times already i think I'm done with it for a while
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 47
4/20/08 at 8:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by indy2005 View Post
Looks great. Did you drop shadows at all? That gave me some semblance of performance, until another AI character came along.
Shadows were on medium. None of the settings really changed the performance I saw except Object Detail and Shader Quality. There was almost no difference between Shader Quality medium vs low, while high killed performance (I think the HDR effect was overkilled anyways). Object Detail medium took a chunk of fps compared to low, but those little rocks, plants, and leaves really added too much to pass on. I didn't play with Volumetric effects, I just set it on low otherwise the intro to the first level ran at 1 fps.

Overall, performance is lower than other games. I am curious why it runs as slowly as it does with everything set to low; I expected it to run like Far Cry since it doesn't look much better. But, I accept the performance I get with my settings- it looks good and runs as I expect it to on a 7 series mobile card.

I run STALKER at 1280x800 too with mostly high settings, and it's hanging around the 20fps range all the time. I prefer to sacrifice screen resolution for special effects.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghazgull013 View Post
This game is meant to be played on an 8 series card, not 7
Yes.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 47
4/20/08 at 9:50pm
I run it @1680x1050 All High and get 35fps

the programming is fine.

it's made for better hardware. that's all
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 47
4/20/08 at 10:04pm
I played it at 1680, on high model/textures, low shaders, low shadows, low water, and medium everything. Ran fine on my rig. It still looks fantastic.

I found that bumping the shaders down to lower helped A LOT.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 47
4/20/08 at 10:27pm
the fact that a 9300 with a 7800 can run it at the same settings as a 1730 regardless of the graphics card, to me is poor coding. i understand that its made for better hardware, but cmon, how good does it have to be!
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 47
4/20/08 at 10:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobra302 View Post
the fact that a 9300 with a 7800 can run it at the same settings as a 1730 regardless of the graphics card, to me is poor coding. i understand that its made for better hardware, but cmon, how good does it have to be!
Are you comparing a 7800 to a single 8700 in the m1730? Or do you mean that the 7800 can run it at the same settings, but with a lot fewer fps?
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 47
4/20/08 at 11:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by |-007-| View Post
Are you comparing a 7800 to a single 8700 in the m1730? Or do you mean that the 7800 can run it at the same settings, but with a lot fewer fps?
"regardless of the graphics card"
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 47
4/21/08 at 1:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by |-007-| View Post
Are you comparing a 7800 to a single 8700 in the m1730? Or do you mean that the 7800 can run it at the same settings, but with a lot fewer fps?
with or without an sli config of 8700, or 8800 for that matter. its just kinda crappy that a comp that old, can run a game that a new lappy with the "latest and greatest(whole nuther story! lol)" can run at the same settings with the same results.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 47
4/21/08 at 4:20am
news flash, the 8700M has a 128-bit memory bus, the 7800GTX has a 256-bit memory bus. clock for clock the 7800GTX is a much more powerful card. now consider that Crysis does not scale that well on SLI setups, new GPUs are heavily dependent on updated drivers to iron out performance issues, and SLI drivers for notebooks are few and far between, you see why your notebook isn't a Crysis killer.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home